from the thank-you-alice dept

Back in 2011, we wrote about Kickstarter going to court to ask for a declaratory judgment that a patent held by ArtistShare (7,885,887) was invalid, and thus, that Kickstarter was not infringing. As we explained at the time, ArtistShare and its CEO Brian Camelio had been going around to various crowdfunding platforms asking them to pay up over the patent. Camelio, never one to hold back his opinions, explained that he was going after Kickstarter because he really just didn't like the company:

"As an artist myself, I feel that KickStarter may be hurting artists by focusing on 'donating money' rather than celebrating the artist for what they do. Their model does not build fan relationships but just continually asks for hand outs."

Even if you agree with that statement, that's completely unrelated to the question of whether the patent is valid or if Kickstarter infringed. And, indeed, the court has now ruled that the patent is, indeed, invalid. Thankfully, between the time of Kickstarter filing for declaratory judgment and this ruling, the Supreme Court's useful Alice ruling came out, making it clear that you cannot patent "generic" computer functions. The ruling in this case relies heavily on that ruling and rejects the patent as nothing more than an "abstract idea" around "patronage" which is not patentable:

The ‘887 Patent’s claims are directed to the concept of crowd-funding or fan-funding, i.e., raising funds for a project from interested individuals in exchange for incentives. Whether the abstract idea in play here is defined as “crowd-funding,” “crowd-based funding,” “fan-funding,” “incentive-based patronage,” “incentivized crowd-funding,” or some other combination of these words is of no moment: the abstract concept at play in the Patent remains the same. Claim 1 broadly recites a “system for marketing and funding one or more projects of an artist” ... and the specification describes the invention as “methods and systems for obtaining financing from interested individuals to produce a creative work in exchange for an entitlement from the author of the work” .... These claims are squarely about patronage — a concept that is “beyond question of ancient lineage.” ...

Moreover, this concept of incentive-based funding is incontestably similar to other “fundamental economic concepts,” and to other types of “organizing human activity,” both of which have been found to be abstract ideas by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

Later in the ruling, the judge notes that everything in the patent is "well-understood, routine conventional activities." That is, the very opposite of what is patentable.

It's good to see a nice clean ruling, though it's too bad this had to sit in court for more than three years, wasting tons of resources that could have been focused on more innovations for creators and innovators. And, of course, it might not be over yet, as Camelio has suggested that he may appeal the ruling.

from the cha-ching dept

When it comes to old notions that are used to stave off the need to embrace new business models in the digital age, nothing is more annoying than the whole "the masses just want everything for free" myth. That belief is snappy, punchy, and as simple to understand as it is completely and demonstrably wrong. But for a certain segment of the population, typically older generations of the kind that pine for the good old days when America was all apple pie and tasteful cartoons, the myth persists. Now, however, the myth is old. Old enough that it's begun to lose its flavor, like a piece of gum that you've been chewing on since Metallica shut down Napster. The new flavor is every digital success story that proves the myth wrong. Kickstarter happens to be my favorite example of this. What's remarkable about Kickstarter is that it's over half a decade old and, despite some still embracing the old myths, it's somehow stillsetting records in raising money for content producers.

Shenmue 3 isn’t only the fastest game to raise a million dollars on Kickstarter, it’s also the fastest game to raise two million dollars. The project was announced last night at Sony’s E3 press conference. It’s the follow-up the Shenmue 2, which was released fourteen years ago.

Were you to believe the legacy content producers, who insist the public are free-loading internet anarchists hell-bent on ruining everything and everyone, this shouldn't even be possible. The fact that records for raising money are being broken now is perfect in debunking every part of the myth. The money rolls in over a decade after the myth's creation, despite the expectation that every day would see an increase in younger generations just wanting "everything for free." The money rolls in six years into Kickstarter's existence, meaning nobody can claim that all this money is currently pouring in due to the embrace of some new platform, the popularity of which will quickly die away. The money rolls in for a video game, the exact kind of product that those who believe the myth would expect to be the most pirated.

What does this all mean? Kickstarter is on the verge of becoming the establishment now, if it isn't already. It's no longer the upstart experiment. It's firmly entrenched as a success story in the modern digital economy, taking its place alongside iTunes, Steam, and Netflix as snap-rebuttals to the old mythos. The truth is that there are conversations to be had about how to best operate within the digital economy, but those proselytizing the old gods against a greed that doesn't exist are no more useful in that discussion than flat-worlders might be in a conversation about astronomy. The myth is dead, gone the way of Zeus and relegated to a time before the counterexamples had borne fruit. The new question isn't whether content producers can get the public to pay for their goods; it's whether the now-established platforms can scale to keep up with the wider adoption of the platform.

Site performance is back up to speed. We're still monitoring everything. We've never seen anything like this. Thanks for your patience! #E3

This was in response to the insane amount of interest and traffic generated by Shenmue 3. People flocking to Kickstarter so fast that the site couldn't keep up. People who others will tell you just want everything for free. The myth is dead. Long live the new business models.

from the come-on-cbs-and-paramount dept

As you may have heard, Leonard Nimoy's son Adam Nimoy is working on what sounds like an incredible and touching documentary called "For the Love of Spock" -- about both the Star Trek character of Spock and about Leonard Nimoy's career (for the none of you who don't already know this, Nimoy played the iconic Mr. Spock in the TV show and movies). It had begun as a documentary just about the character of Spock, but after Leonard Nimoy passed away earlier this year, the focus has expanded to cover his life as well. It sounds really great, but Adam is trying to raise $600,000 on Kickstarter to make it happen. There are a lot of reasonable expenses included in that $600k, but one stood out to me: the need to license images and footage of Nimoy:

It will also enable us to license the hundreds of film clips and still photographs of Mr. Spock as he has appeared on television and in feature films over the last fifty years.

It's worth noting that part of the thinking behind this was to get the documentary out in time for the 50th anniversary of the original Star Trek. In other words, if anything, this documentary is only going to help draw a lot more attention to the whole Star Trek franchise which can only be good for the rightsholders. In other words, the fact that the rightsholders haven't stepped up and just granted a free license to Adam Nimoy is ridiculous and short-sighted.

Admittedly, the rights behind Star Trek are a little muddled due to the CBS/Viacom corporate split a decade ago, with each company still owning pieces. But, either way, it seems that both CBS and Viacom/Paramount Pictures should recognize that they stand to benefit greatly from having this documentary. The idea that they can't sort this out themselves and give Nimoy the photos and clips he needs seems ridiculous.

Supporting this documentary seems like a great idea -- and it sounds like much of the money will go towards all of the other important work in putting together an excellent end product. It just seems ridiculous that at least a decent chunk of the money has to be used to pay off CBS and/or Paramount to convince them to let Nimoy make a movie that will only help their own bottom line.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

We've mentioned some wind power projects before, but wind is still a relatively small contributor to total energy production in the US. Sure, there are some problems with not having wind available 24/7 -- as well as people complaining about bird deaths and a ruined view. Still, there are some solutions to some of these problems, and it might be nice to generate more electricity without burning fossil fuels.

Erik Chevalier, d/b/a The Forking Path, hit Kickstarter with a plan for a boardgame featuring "Lovecraftian urban destruction" and a goal of $35,000. By the time the clock wound down, Chevalier was sitting on $123,000 of what would turn out to be mostly donations. That was June of 2012. By July of 2013, after numerous delays and long silences, Chevalier announced the project's demise. He also promised to start refunding backers. Apparently, only the first assertion was true. In fact, a lot of what was said to backers proved to be untrue. From the FTC complaint:

In an update issued on July 23, 2013, Defendant stated that the project was being cancelled because “the intention was to start a board game company with the Kickstarter funds” and that “[a]fter paying to form the company, for the miniature statues, moving back to Portland, getting software licenses and hiring artists to do things like rule book design and art conforming[,] the money was approaching a point of no return.”

In reality, Defendant never hired artists for the board game and instead used the consumers’ funds for miscellaneous personal equipment, rent for a personal residence, and licenses for a separate project.

More recently, Defendant promised consumers that he would provide an accounting of his expenses, but he has not done so. Consumers continue to file complaints regarding Defendant’s failure to provide the promised products and rewards, or refunds.

Eventually, after numerous complaints from the backers and the artistic creators of the game, another game developer stepped in and published the game and gave all backers a copy of the board game but not the other, highly-prized deliverables, such as the promised pewter figurines.

To date, Defendant has neither provided the promised reward deliverables nor refunded most of the consumers.

Chevalier's settlement agreement with the FTC is mostly toothless. It concedes he doesn't have the funds to pay back the $112,000 he still owes backers, thus suspending this route of recourse. The other wording in the agreement simply orders him to not being a lying swindler while utilizing crowdfunding services. In other words, behave like a normal, decent human being. Why it takes a government agency to deliver this message is beyond me, especially when it could have ordered him to steer clear of these services entirely.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant, Defendant's officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all others in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with any crowdfunding campaign, are permanently restrained and enjoined from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting, expressly or by implication:

A. the purposes for which funds raised from consumers will be used; B. that by making a contribution, consumers will receive a specific good, service, or other reward deliverable; C. the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of such good, service, or other reward deliverable; or D. the qualifications or expertise of any person associated with the crowdfunding campaign.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant, Defendant's officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all others in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice ofthis Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with any crowdfunding campaign, are permanently restrained and enjoined from failing to honor any stated refund, cancellation, exchange, or repurchase policy.

Coupled with this are some more stringent stipulations, including the FTC's monitoring of Chevalier's crowdfunding-related activity for the next 18 years, as well as giving the agency permission to pounce on any assets it deems "hidden" for the purposes of repaying Kickstarter backers.

An additional layer of scrutiny for crowdfunding ventures is probably a good idea, but not every funded project that dies is necessarily the result of the formative entity taking the money and running. It will be tempting to believe this is true in every case, especially if leaning on the FTC proves more effective than relying on self-policing and crowdfunding platforms Terms of Service agreements. As it stands now, there aren't many effective legal routes to demanding refunds for undelivered projects, and that has proven to be a bit of a problem, albeit far less frequently than cautionary notes to potential backers would have you believe.

If the FTC is going to regulate this like any other "trade," the deterrents will have to be a bit stronger than the terms of this settlement. The agreement with Chevalier may ward off future fraudulent attempts by him and his company, but it doesn't seem likely to scare off others who see crowdfunding as a path to quick personal enrichment.

from the fanciful-geopolitics dept

The TPP saga is entering a critical phase. After the excitement of the initial rejection of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA -- "fast track") in the Senate, followed by the vote in its favor shortly afterwards, attention is now focused on the House, where the outcome is still in doubt. Meanwhile, Australian politicians have finally been granted access to the negotiating text -- but under humiliating conditions, as The Guardian reports:

They were told they could view the current TPP negotiating text on Tuesday "subject to certain confidentiality requirements" and were shown a document they would be required to sign before any viewing.

I will not divulge any of the text or information obtained in the briefing to any party.

I will not copy, transcribe or remove the negotiating text.

The following condition is interesting:

I therefore agree that these confidentiality requirements shall apply for four years after entry into force of the TPP, or if no agreement enters into force, for four years after the last round of negotiations.

This confirms what Techdirt wrote back in 2011: that aside from the final agreement, all the other negotiating texts will be kept secret for four years after the conclusion of the talks. And yet, bad as the Australian deal is, it's more than the public gets when it comes to accessing the text being negotiated in its name. Fortunately, we have WikiLeaks, which has already published three chapters of TPP, and now hopes to leak the rest:

Today WikiLeaks has launched a campaign to crowd-source a $100,000 reward for America’s Most Wanted Secret: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

The most influential, by Peter Petri, Michael Plummer and Fan Zhai, for the East-West Centre, a research institute, forecasts that the deal would raise the GDP of the 12 signatories by $285 billion, or 0.9%, by 2025. It is their numbers that America's government cites when it says TPP will make the country $77 billion richer.

But other researchers predict far more modest gains from TPP:

[The researchers Ciuriak and Xiao] calculate that TPP will raise the GDP of the 12 countries by just $74 billion by 2035, a mere 0.21% higher than baseline forecasts. Others see an even smaller impact. In a paper for the Asian Development Bank Institute, Inkyo Cheong forecasts that America's GDP will be entirely unchanged by TPP.

Given those small, perhaps non-existent, economic benefits, it's perhaps not surprising that US proponents of TPP have shifted their emphasis, claiming that TPP is not so much about economics, as about geopolitical influence -- President Obama's famous "pivot to Asia." A perceptive analysis in the Boston Globe explains why that makes no sense:

The administration's geopolitical case for TPP is fanciful. In the real world, there is no way that new rules for trans-Pacific trade, written without regard to China and without Chinese participation, will somehow pivot the United States into a lasting position of supremacy in China’s backyard.

Four basic facts explain why that is so: First, China is now everybody's biggest trading partner, including America's prospective partners in TPP. Second, the Chinese market represents the major growth opportunity for all these nations.

Third, whatever their concerns about China's increasing military power, Asian leaders have no interest in distancing themselves economically from China -- or from the supply chains that converge there. Fourth, most economists expect China's economic growth will continue to be much faster than that of the United States.

That means that as well as offering the US marginal economic benefits at best, TPP might also damage its chances of engaging meaningfully with China. Sadly, it's probably too much to hope that US politicians will pay much attention to either point once the next round of Congressional haggling over TPA starts again.

from the "wirefree" dept

For this week's awesome stuff, we're looking at a project that aims to beat Bluetooth at its own game: the HearNotes WireFree earbuds. These headphones use their own wireless technology to, supposedly, deliver higher-quality audio than Bluetooth with no danger of interference or interruption.

The Good

It's a wireless world, but Bluetooth audio simply isn't up to par. If the HearNotes technology — dubbed "Kleer" — really can deliver better, more reliable sound, then that's an obvious plus. I suspect that the "reliable" part of that equation is actually the more important and could make these a popular product, since pairing and range issues with Bluetooth devices are especially infuriating when you just want to listen to music, whereas the sound quality issue is something of a wildcard: it's questionable just how much people actually notice better sound in blind tests, and devices sold on sound quality have both sunk and swam in the past. In the world of wireless headphones, however, almost everyone agrees they are still noticeably worse than wired options, so it seems like there is some genuine room for improvement. Beyond that core question of sound, the little details of the HearNotes are top notch, like the inductive charging case and the design of the earbuds themselves.

The Bad

The big showstopper is the price. The estimated MSRP is $349, and though there are some decent savings for Kickstarter backers and early birds, it still puts the HearNotes in the same range as the highest-end Bluetooth headphones. That just further enforces the need for these to deliver on the core promises of convenience and quality if they are to stand a chance on the market.

The other obvious issue is the need to have a special transmitter plugged into your headphone jack. They describe it as "versatile" but I'm not really sure what that means as it actually looks quite cumbersome. That said, it seems like there are many popular uses for wireless audio that involve leaving your phone on a desk while you move about (which, with the boasted 50-foot range, would be very possible) so a bulky transmitter might not be a big deal. Still, it would be nice to see options such as building the transmitter into a phone case, or perhaps making it a module for last week's Awesome Stuff project.

The Nauseating

I fully understand that entrepreneurs and innovative people in general have to get very passionate when talking about their work. At Techdirt, we do it ourselves all the time. But there's something extremely offputting about HearNotes' self-serious Kickstarter video (can we retire the phrase "allow me to enlighten you"?) and strained marketing jargon. The greatest irritation is the insistent branding of these earbuds as WireFree, and the claims that this is distinct from wireless because it offers a greater and more reliable degree of freedom. The thinking behind this is actually understandable because, as noted, convenience is the real selling point for a Bluetooth replacement. Despite all our wireless technology, it's actually rare to get that seamless sci-fi feeling of just grabbing-and-going with a wireless device; instead, we generally have to tap out a password or open an app or at least press a button somewhere. If HearNotes can offer a new level of "just works" satisfaction, then it's got a major hook. But somehow the clarity of that point gets lost in the WireFree branding and the photos of people dancing in a meadow. (Though they do, quite fairly, point out that a lot of wireless Bluetooth earbuds are connected to each other by... a wire.)

from the not-a-toy dept

Although it rarely makes it into the Western media these days, the bloody conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues to smoulder along a vague and shifting front. The lack of direct support from the West means that the Ukrainians have had to come up with other approaches to counter Russia's massive superiority in both technology and resources. According to a fascinating article in the Guardian, one way they are doing this is by using lost-cost drones, paid for by crowdfunding. One of Ukraine’s top IT outsourcing companies, Eleks, has been helping with the technical side:

Eleks, which is a private company based in both Ukraine and Nevada, pays healthy salaries. It allows staff to work on software and drone hardware projects that receive no government support or funding during work hours. They are doing this because, as their project manager, Ivan Dmytrasevych, told us, "We know we have to invest in the defence of our country. If our research works, and we can show the people that it works, then we will turn to crowdfunding to realise it."

Eleks is working on a number of drone projects. One is to help Ukrainian drones return to base automatically if signals are jammed by the Russians:

Ivan says that the Russian forces have highly advanced systems to jam and intercept Ukrainian drones, which can easily send them off course and into enemy hands. "They have $7m systems to jam drones that cost thousands of dollars,” he explains. "We just can’t match their resources." However, if they can slow down these types of losses, they can build up a useful force.

Another is to use drones to map Russian forces on the ground to provide coordinates for shelling:

"Just imagine that you take a map of some territory from Google Maps, and then your drone flies over the territory to take a picture. Artillery teams need exact coordinates from enemy positions shown on those images. Our software will help them get it instantly."

That's an indication that these crowdfunded drones are not just digital toys for the combatants, but designed to cause serious casualties in the real world. Indeed, they already have -- on the Ukrainian side, during attempts to construct drones that could drop bombs on the Russians. According to the Guardian report, some of the engineers were killed as they worked on this project:

Firstly, these were essentially homemade and potentially faulty bombs. Secondly, the fact that they were launching drones multiple times from the same position quickly exposed their location. From what I'd been told, a mortar or sniper attack was guaranteed at this point.

Those risks are unlikely to dissuade engineers from using these up-to-the-minute means to counter the huge disparity between the opposing forces, since the Ukrainians don't really have many other options.

Cobblebot promised shipments to its earliest backers by October 2014. It's now April 2015 and some have yet to see the 3D printers they've paid for. Worse, other backers of other products by Cobblebot have already received theirs. (Cobblebot started another Kickstarter project shortly after this one was funded, as well as using IndieGogo to raise additional funds.) It's the earliest backers -- at least those who have been critical of numerous shipping delays -- who are still waiting for their paid-for printers to be shipped.

Whatever the real reason behind these delayed shipments, Cobblebot has chosen to portray this as a (highly dubious) legal issue.

One customer, who goes by the handle of JeffRandall on the Cobbleverse forum, recently contacted the company via email with the following message:

“Can you please tell me what the status is for my final shipment. I paid the final invoice over a week ago and I am one of the 99 super early bird backers [these backers had an expected delivery date which passed 6 months ago!]. The message from you was that the package had been prepared, yet it hasn’t shipped in over a week.”

Jeff received the following, rather alarming reply shortly after:

“Hello Jeffrey,

Sorry for the delay and an explanation is necessary. Your account was placed on hold by our legal department. Under Texas law, it is unlawful to engage in defamation of another’s character and reputation. The law presumes certain categories of statements are defamatory per se, including statements that (1) unambiguously charge a crime, dishonesty, fraud, rascality, or general depravity or (2) that are falsehoods that injure one in his office, business, profession, or occupation. Main v. Royall, 348 S.W.3d 318, 390.

Several of your recent posts on various internet forums were being reviewed by the legal department for inclusion in our fourth round of upcoming legal actions being filed to protect our company’s reputation from the illegal act of defamation.

All the above being said, we did receive a hold release from the legal department today and will proceed with the shipping of your package. What does it mean when the legal department releases a hold? It normally means one of two things: 1) The legal department has decided the reviewed statement(s) were not defamation under Texas law; or 2) They have decided to issue a warning (Cease & Desist letter) to provide the opportunity to stop defaming the company’s reputation.

Keep in mind that the support department does not have access to the legal department’s records, so we don’t know anything for certain. We are just attempting to explain the type of hold that we saw placed on your account and what that type of hold means.

In any case, the hold has been released and we will move forward with the shipping of your final package. Thanks for supporting Cobblebot and have a wonderful day!

Cobblebot Team"

All in all, a ridiculous response. Why further anger an already angry customer? Especially when "Cobblebot Team" can't be bothered to specify what exactly Randall (or others) said that was "defamation per se." As Popehat's Maxim states: "Vagueness in legal demands is the hallmark of frivolous legal thuggery."

This legal vagueness is part of Cobblebot's colorful history. It's been complaining about comments by unhappy backers since August of last year. This post in its forums -- sporting the rather unreassuring title of "Everything is ON SCHEDULE" -- claims people are flooding its inbox with concerns about "defamatory" posts by others.

We have also been receiving a large number of emails concerning some of the negative publicity that we are getting from certain individuals, some 3D printing communities, and people who work for competing businesses. As someone who has been using the internet since back in the 1200 baud modem days, I can say with confidence that the internet has always been and will likely continue to be filled with very opinionated individuals. These individuals, regardless of their ignorance with regards to Cobblebot, our operations and suppliers, are entitled to their opinion. We are aware, as many of you have pointed out to us, that some of these individuals have crossed certain legal lines into things like defamation. While many of you have asked us if we plan to respond to these individuals or what we plan to do – I’m afraid that we cannot answer that question. Any action Cobblebot decides to take or not take to defend its reputation is an internal matter and will not be made public by us. That being said, we do appreciate the efforts that many of you have made to defend against some of the accusations being tossed around, as well as the efforts made to bring these things to our attention.

The most ridiculous claim in the C&D sent to Randall is this: that the "legal" arm of Cobblebot is completely walled off from the "support" side. In all likelihood, they are one and the same. The man behind Cobblebot is Jeremiah Clifft, who's also an attorney… or at least was one. This makes composing and sending C&D's full of scary legalese very, very cheap. It also indicates that -- even if there are two walled-off divisions of the "Cobblebot team" -- one man stands astride both, holding a recently-expired license to practice law.

To date, Cobblebot seems to have sent out more C&Ds than printers, apparently targeting customers unhappy with shipping delays, unkept promises (like the inclusion of assembly instructions/videos) and its general unresponsiveness to legitimate complaints.

Now, Cobblebot has every right to pursue truly defamatory comments, but there's a process for that and it should be wholly unrelated to the process of fulfilling backers' orders. By its own statements on the matter, its order fulfillment team is completely removed from its legal team. There's no reason these two should be mixing in this fashion, and they only appear to do so when it works out in Cobblebot's favor. Defamatory comments or no, the backers have paid for their products. They should be given what they've paid for.

To use this as an excuse to put shipments on hold just gives more credence to the theory that Cobblebot is making promises it can't possibly keep. Its own Kickstarter pitches suggest a move towards a more triangular business model.

So just how did CobbleBot manage to ship over 1,150 3D printers costing $299, when they themselves stated that the average price for a machine of this size is over 12 times that price, ‘$3,716.57’? Well, they haven’t.

It still has yet to ship more than a handful of these 3D printers, despite three successful crowdfunding campaigns. Now, it's apparently taking internet orders and shipping those first, all the while claiming defamatory statements by early backers are what's keeping them from receiving theirs. Something's rotten in this deal and it's not the heated comments of pissed off backers.

A long and thorough explanation of how business models like Cobblebot's simply aren't feasible -- at least not at this point, as well as a few equations that can give backers a good estimate as to when similar Kickstarters will run out funding.

from the looking-at-the-other-side dept

Let me start this post off by noting that I'm a huge fan of crowdfunding and think that it's an amazing force for all sorts of good things in art, culture and innovation. That's part of the reason why we do a weekly awesome stuff post highlighting interesting (and sometimes awesome) crowdfunding projects. But, it should be noted that crowdfunding projects don't always turn out great. There are plenty of horror stories to go around -- some involving what appear to be outright fraud, certainly -- mostly just because project creators are way overly optimistic on their ability to achieve their goals. I've backed a few dozen projects, and I can only think of a handful that were delivered on time. To be honest, this doesn't bother me so much. What's much worse is that as projects go bad, the project creators tend to disappear, not updating people with the bad news, leading people to get angrier and angrier.

Kickstarter, for one, has long tried to make it clear that it is "not a store," but rather that you're backing a project, and there's risk associated with that -- including the risk that a project may fail. However, it's still disappointing to back a project and have it be totally disappointing. So, this week, I thought I'd ask people about the most disappointing crowdfunded projects they've seen or backed. And I'll reveal mine. Back in the summer of 2013, on one of our awesome stuffs I wrote about the HOT Watch, a new smart watch that had some interesting features, including the ability to hold your hand up to your ear and use your hand like a phone. The video for the project was super cheesy/infomercially, which scared me off, but I'd become somewhat fascinated with the possibilities for smartwatches, and at the last minute bought into it. The backers of the project swore up and down, left, right and center, that the project would ship in time for Christmas in 2013. Right up until basically the end of the year the company insisted it would be shipping. It's now February of 2015 and I still don't have mine. Because I just don't care any more, I've asked them for a refund and they haven't replied, which is pretty much what I expected. Some people appear to have received theirs -- but I haven't and it's now 15 months late, and the market for smartwatches has moved way past the HOT Watch.

Lesson learned: crowdfunder beware.

Another, similar project, which (thankfully) I did not back is the Lima, which was a little device that was supposed to enable you to very easily set up your own personal cloud with USB devices at home. That presentation was super slick, and I was tempted to back it, but the pricing seemed a little steep, and I'm glad I didn't because while it also promised delivery by December 2013, at last check, it also has not delivered at all, and there are tons of people demanding refunds. I had mentioned the Lima in another awesome stuff post, and the company reached out to me saying the team wanted to send me a postcard (?!?!) as a thank you. I told the person not to bother, but the company still found our office address and sent it anyway. It seems like, rather than sending out post cards to people who don't want them, they could have put time into working on the product.

Anyway, this isn't to knock crowdfunding, or even these two projects in particular. It's just to note that there are risks associated with crowdfunding, and certain projects turn out to be flops, so you need to be aware. In the meantime, would love to hear about crowdfunding flops that you have backed (or luckily avoided...).